Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act governs the management of uncultivated land, emphasizing the obligation of timely inquiries for management continuation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, the petitioners impugn judgments rendered by learned Assistant Collector, Dhule in TNC Case No.18/83 and by the MRT in Tenancy Appeal No.154/1985.

2. Original petitioner was admittedly the owner of the land in question which originally bore S.No.45/2 and now is Gat No.119/1, admeasuring 3l Hectares 72 Ares situated at village Sadgaon, Dist. Dhule. It appears that Respondent No.1 - deceased Rupchand was previously cultivating a part of the said land. He filed an application U/s 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (For short, BT and AL Act). He submitted that the land was not being cultivated by the landlord i.e. deceased petitioner, continuously for more than two (2) years and, therefore, was liable to be taken over under management of the Government. The application was considered by the learned Assistant Collector, Dhule. A preliminary issue was raised as to whether the deceased Respondent No.1 had locus-standi to file such application. The learned Assistant Collector held that the proceedings could be initiated at behest of anyone inasmuch as power U/s 65 was exercisable when the authority could come across material to infer that for any two (2) consecutive years the land has remained uncultivated. The assistant Collector held that land was kept fallow for period of more than two years and therefore, it could be taken over under management of the Government as contemplated U/s 65(1) of the BT & AL Act. In keeping with such findings, the Assistant Collector by order dated 5.2.1985 directed that the land in question shall be taken under management of the Government and it should be leased out to other persons by giving preference to those who had been cultivating it previously. It is pertinent to notice that the explanation of the deceased petitioner was that the land had been kept fallow due to reasons beyond his control inasmuch as he was suffering from heart trouble and was unable to personally cultivate the land or to make alternate arrangement within the short period. The appeal preferred by the deceased petitioner was dismissed by the MRT vide order dated 15.3.1991.

3. None appears for the Respondent Nos.1-a to 1-e though they have been served.

4. Heard learned counsel for the L.Rs. of petitioner and learned A.G.P.

5. At the out-set, it may be mentioned that the land in question has remained uncultivated for mote than two (2) years is an undisputed fact. The purport of Section 65 (1) is to obtain custody of the land which has remained uncultivated. Section 65 provides for assumption of the management of such land. Sub-section (2) of Section 65 declares that the lands shall be deemed as vested in the Government during the period of management. Needless to say, the land is not permanently taken away nor it is perpetually handed over to any third party. The deceased petitioner never asserted that the land was uncultivable or could not be cultivated. Whether the power was exercised at behest of the deceased Respondent No.1 or that it was exercised suo-motu will not make any difference.

6. The impugned judgments of the Tribunals would show that necessary opportunity was given to the deceased petitioner to explain his stance. It appears from the record that previously deceased Respondent No.1 was cultivating the land in question without any authority with the help of some three Adiwasis. The MRT has observed that the deceased Respondent No.1 and the other three (3) encroachers had been evicted from the land in question and, thereafter, the land was handed over to the deceased petitioner (landlord). Even though he came into possession of